Nintendo kicks “Let’s Play” videos off YouTube then slaps ads on them

Homemade videos are the best gaming ads out there, yet they're taken down.

Once it became simple to record, upload, and share digital video over the Internet, gamers quickly became interested in recording themselves playing games—especially with humorous or profane commentary. The phenomenon of creating and sharing so-called "Let's Play" videos took off around 2006 and today has its own channel on YouTube. Practitioners of this self-recording art sometimes refer to themselves as LPers for short.

Now, it looks like Let's Play videos are one more piece of content that's being caught up in YouTube's Content ID system. It's an automated copyright-enforcement system that's been glitchy from the start and often criticized for taking down legitimate content. Remixes of cultural icons have been taken down with no good explanation, as well as NASA content that should be in the public domain. Political satire didn't stand a chance either. Until October, there wasn't even a meaningful appeal system for owners of wrongly removed videos.

It looks like LPers are the latest victims. A prolific LPer named Zack Scott took to Facebook yesterday to complain that several LPers had experienced takedowns of the videos including Nintendo games. A company fan like himself wasn't the right target for automated takedowns, Scott complained, and he said he'd stop playing Nintendo games until the situation was straightened out. "It jeopardizes my channel's copyright standing and the livelihood of all LPers," he wrote.

Scott continues:

I got a Wii U at midnight when I already had one in the mail. I've been a Nintendo fan since the NES, and I've owned all of their systems... I think filing claims against LPers is backwards. Video games aren't like movies or TV. Each play-through is a unique audiovisual experience. When I see a film that someone else is also watching, I don't need to see it again. When I see a game that someone else is playing, I want to play that game for myself! Sure, there may be some people who watch games rather than play them, but are those people even gamers?

After Scott's complaint was reported by GameFront, Nintendo responded—but didn't really add much clarity to the situation. The blocks would stop, but Nintendo would instead append ads to videos that featured its content if the images or audio reached "a certain length." How long? Who knows. Nintendo wants its content "shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way," the company said. The company statement goes on:

For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to, or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property.

The LPers whose videos have run smack into Nintendo's copyright policy are facing two problems. First, because fair use rules are so murky and decided on a case-by-case basis, an automated system like ContentID is very likely to engage in overreach.

Second, the speech of the fans who love Nintendo is actually unfairly being censored (or in this case, monetized) by a copyright owner. This is a situation where more negative speech would almost surely be protected. If the LPers were highly critical of the companies or products they were discussing, or were provoking them with parody, their speech would likely be protected as fair use. It's the same paradox faced by fan-fiction writers, elegantly summed up by Cory Doctorow in a 2009 column entitled "When love is harder to show than hate."

Homemade videos about gaming are about the best ads a company like Nintendo could hope for. Nintendo's attempt to control and monetize these using ContentID may be a net negative for them in the long term. "[I]t's you LPers who make us want to buy them for ourselves," a gamer named Nicole Perez wrote on Scott's Facebook page. "You make the games look fun and amazing; 150 times better than any damn trailer they will put out."

146 Reader Comments

I remember that Totalbiscuit (member of the Gamestation network) said that Sega was doing something similar. However, I think he said that they were just sending takedown notices. Apparently after 3 takedown notices, your youtube account is suspended from making ad revenue, IIRC. In reaction, TB and other gamestation members have been boycotting Sega games, which means that I don't see or hear about them, and then don't know they exist, so I don't buy them. Net negative for sure.

I would have hoped that Nintendo would have approached the content creators before requesting the videos be pulled and adds put up to try and reach a harmonious medium (though I imagine the current situation is that middle ground). I personally am a bit split by the Lets Play style videos - on the one hand it is a great advertisement about the game but on the other, the people playing through the entirety of the game are essentially displaying the entire game for free minus the interactivity.

I don't know what the right answer is, but with Nintendo looking at a somewhat bleak immediate future, I don't think this is the kind of thing they should be focusing on.

I would have hoped that Nintendo would have approached the content creators before requesting the videos be pulled and adds put up to try and reach a harmonious medium (though I imagine the current situation is that middle ground). I personally am a bit split by the Lets Play style videos - on the one hand it is a great advertisement about the game but on the other, the people playing through the entirety of the game are essentially displaying the entire game for free minus the interactivity.

I don't know what the right answer is, but with Nintendo looking at a somewhat bleak immediate future, I don't think this is the kind of thing they should be focusing on.

With the possible exception of the dark, dystopia of early-90s "Wow, a CD has 650 megabytes! choose-your-own-next-grainy-cutscene" games and a few semi-interactive game-as-art pieces, it seems to me that any game whose value is appreciably reduced by watching somebody play it probably sucked in the first place...

Some people don't like spoilers, so they should avoid playthroughs; but if a playthrough video is a decent substitute good for the game itself, I can't feel much pity for the game.

I remember that Totalbiscuit (member of the Gamestation network) said that Sega was doing something similar. However, I think he said that they were just sending takedown notices. Apparently after 3 takedown notices, your youtube account is suspended from making ad revenue, IIRC. In reaction, TB and other gamestation members have been boycotting Sega games, which means that I don't see or hear about them, and then don't know they exist, so I don't buy them. Net negative for sure.

Either way this is an incredibly silly move on nintendo's part. Comparing ad revenue to game price then 1 sale =~2-5k views in ad revenue. Then add in all the goodwill they're loosing, free advertising they're not going to get and the talk of reviewers not wanting to risk their accounts going forward. :x

I remember that Totalbiscuit (member of the Gamestation network) said that Sega was doing something similar. However, I think he said that they were just sending takedown notices. Apparently after 3 takedown notices, your youtube account is suspended from making ad revenue, IIRC. In reaction, TB and other gamestation members have been boycotting Sega games, which means that I don't see or hear about them, and then don't know they exist, so I don't buy them. Net negative for sure.

Thankfully, Nintendo's commanding lead in the next-gen console space clearly means that they have no need for the 'goodwill of their biggest fans' or 'publicity' or any such nonsense. You'd think that(especially with Sony rolling out their 'we put a button on the controller for you to post junk to youtube' initiative) that Nintendo would manage to at least avoid mishandling this gift(all they had to do was not touch it; but no), or even come up with something actually synergistic, not just extracting a few pennies worth of adsense. Unimpressive, Nintendo, unimpressive.

With the possible exception of the dark, dystopia of early-90s "Wow, a CD has 650 megabytes! choose-your-own-next-grainy-cutscene" games and a few semi-interactive game-as-art pieces, it seems to me that any game whose value is appreciably reduced by watching somebody play it probably sucked in the first place...

Some people don't like spoilers, so they should avoid playthroughs; but if a playthrough video is a decent substitute good for the game itself, I can't feel much pity for the game.

I was going to say the same thing once I had read the same comment. Games are about experience less than narrative. If a game you have never played before is not enjoyable because you know all/some of the plot, then it is a poor game. Less enjoyable, sure (Bioshock just wouldn't have been the same), but not devoid of what you buy games for. Nintendo treating games as such shocks me, since I thought they had a better holistic view of games compared to the likes of Sony and MS.

Does anyone think that this might have originally (i.e. before reconsidering and implementing ads) had something to do with Nintendo's "kid-friendly" approach? Some of those videos contain quite some profanity.

If a game you have never played before is not enjoyable because you know all/some of the plot, then it is a poor game. Less enjoyable, sure (Bioshock just wouldn't have been the same), but not devoid of what you buy games for.

Probably true, should also note that let's plays are generally not that fast to produce and even some big channels starting the game at launch have still not gotten to the ending. (of Bioshock infinite that is)

Lets Plays are *explicity* named in the YouTube TOS as something you're *not* allowed to make money off (or possibly even produce at all) without explicit consent of the content owners. People like TB and what-not have contracts and deals with various publishers to ensure they are allowed to do this.

Nothing has changed. This isn't a grey area that Nintendo has decided to flex its iron fist over.

If you want to make Lets Plays get permission, or work with a group (like Machinima) that can sort out that stuff for you.

(addendum: I do think Let's Plays are often great advertising. I've been extremely tempted to buy SimCity recently, even though I hate what EA has done lately, because some of the Let's Plays have really got my creative juices flowing and I'm near-salivating at the idea of trying out some of my own ideas. On the other hand, I've watched lets plays of highly... directed, games, because it's cheaper than buying the game, and I really only wanted to see the story play out anyway. Regardless though, "great advertising" isn't a good enough excuse.)

If a YouTube video endangers your game's sales, you probably need to work on the game aspect, or just move into the movie business.

I'll be honest that there's been cases where I've seen LPs of open or non-directed games that have made me feel like I've seen enough and not want to get the game, and I've seen LPs of linear movie-games that have made me want to experience it for myself. Maybe as many as the opposite.

I remember that Totalbiscuit (member of the Gamestation network) said that Sega was doing something similar. However, I think he said that they were just sending takedown notices. Apparently after 3 takedown notices, your youtube account is suspended from making ad revenue, IIRC. In reaction, TB and other gamestation members have been boycotting Sega games, which means that I don't see or hear about them, and then don't know they exist, so I don't buy them. Net negative for sure.

Or maybe you could just accept that it is their intellectual property and they can do whatever they want with it. Throwing a little tantrum because your copyright violation got removed is really really mature.

You are not entitled to anyone's intellectual property, get that into your smug head.

There's no tantrum. User finds products through a particular medium. Manufacturer has decided to prevent product from appearing in that medium. User doesn't find out about product. QED Manufacturer has lost ability to sell to that User.

I'm surprised Twitch is allowed to exist given 99% of its content is games being streamed. Yes some of them are esports, but half the casters are also running music they don't own, only one of the 100 or so i follow actually has a "I've paid licensing fee's to the content licensing company"

Kinda interesting that Nin would do this given how much free advertising they would be getting from these vids. The adds being put in is normal for the YT DCMA process, content owner adds get put in so the uploader can keep the video up, this isn't new.

"Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Read our Copyright Tips for more information."

Google will generally shut down lets players that are streaming games that don't have explicit reuse exemptions in the TOS/EULA or aren't signed up to someplace like the GameStation that dot's the t's and i's for their members with the developers..

"Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Read our Copyright Tips for more information."

Google will generally shut down lets players that are streaming games that don't have explicit reuse exemptions in the TOS/EULA or aren't signed up to someplace like the GameStation that dot's the t's and i's for their members with the developers..

I remember that Totalbiscuit (member of the Gamestation network) said that Sega was doing something similar. However, I think he said that they were just sending takedown notices. Apparently after 3 takedown notices, your youtube account is suspended from making ad revenue, IIRC. In reaction, TB and other gamestation members have been boycotting Sega games, which means that I don't see or hear about them, and then don't know they exist, so I don't buy them. Net negative for sure.

Or maybe you could just accept that it is their intellectual property and they can do whatever they want with it. Throwing a little tantrum because your copyright violation got removed is really really mature.

You are not entitled to anyone's intellectual property, get that into your smug head.

It's odd how copyright maximalism seems to erase this distinction in people's minds:

The issue is not so much whether Nintendo has the right to do this(which they quite possibly do, if enough of their game is included in the video); but whether they are being complete morons by myopically squeezing one, relatively low-value, 'right' at the expense of the product lines that actually make them money.

This isn't even one of those trademark cases, with the 'yeah, but we have to be hardasses or dilution, something, something....' is in effect. Nintendo is entirely free to ignore them, without the slightest danger to their copyrights.

Lets Plays are *explicity* named in the YouTube TOS as something you're *not* allowed to make money off (or possibly even produce at all) without explicit consent of the content owners. People like TB and what-not have contracts and deals with various publishers to ensure they are allowed to do this.

You are absolutely wrong. Game reviewers needs no agreement with a publisher to review a game. If that were the case then publishers would be able to pick and choose who got to review their game and not. They rely completely on fair use to do reviews.

The only agreement between reviewers and publishers are for distribution of early review copies where they enforce an embargo that usually ends a few days before the game is released. The embargo is there to make sure everyone gets a few days with the game rather than rushing out a review asap.

Lets Plays are *explicity* named in the YouTube TOS as something you're *not* allowed to make money off (or possibly even produce at all) without explicit consent of the content owners. People like TB and what-not have contracts and deals with various publishers to ensure they are allowed to do this.

You are absolutely wrong. Game reviewers needs no agreement with a publisher to review a game. If that were the case then publishers would be able to pick and choose who got to review their game and not. They rely completely on fair use to do reviews.

The only agreement between reviewers and publishers are for distribution of early review copies where they enforce an embargo that usually ends a few days before the game is released. The embargo is there to make sure everyone gets a few days with the game rather than rushing out a review asap.

Absolutely is a fairly strong word.

Reviews are part of being critical, which like parody, has some protection depending on the region you live in.

A Lets Play is not a review. It's hour upon hour of unabridged footage of a game being played, with non-critical commentary over the top. There are people who have LPs of Skyrim that have hundreds of 40 minute episodes.

These kinds of comparisons can get conversations into trouble, but it's like the difference between a movie review or critique (like Red Letter Media's Star Wars critiques that are longer than the movies themselves) and just footage of a movie being watched, with inane commentary over the top.

*Edit*: If when you say review you're referring to me referring to TB, I apologise. TB is perhaps a bad example because he doesn't really do Lets Plays, though it's arguable that his content sits somewhere in between. To stay in the same vein of content producers, let's take my argument and swap out TB for Jessie Cox, or NorthernLion.

Lets Plays are *explicity* named in the YouTube TOS as something you're *not* allowed to make money off (or possibly even produce at all) without explicit consent of the content owners. People like TB and what-not have contracts and deals with various publishers to ensure they are allowed to do this.

You are absolutely wrong. Game reviewers needs no agreement with a publisher to review a game. If that were the case then publishers would be able to pick and choose who got to review their game and not. They rely completely on fair use to do reviews.

A) Let's Plays are not game reviews: they're videos of people playing games.

B) TB and Jessie Cox chat about the whole licensing thing WRT LP's for 5-10 mins back when Halo 4 came out with a clause restricting general YouTube use in the EULA.

There was this game Medal of Honor: Warfighter I was interested in. It was being called the sequel to Battlefield 3 which was a lie. I looked for a gameplay vid before I bought a game. All I could find were trailers. Once I bought the game, I was very disappointed I had paid 70 dollars for the digital deluxe version of it. I decided to upload a video of the game play, so it could help other not make the mistake I had made, or maybe confirm they still want the game.

Well in about 3 days after uploading it was taken down for copyright infringement. I did not post my opinion of the game, or say anything about. I simply tagged for what it was. I had it pending review for ad-sense, but never got a dime for it. I almost lost my account over it. I had nearly 100,000 views before it was taken down. It was one my most viewed videos in the shortest time frame. The same happened for several other game plays I uploaded, but all those I actually liked. Now I rarely upload vids dude to the infringement crap. In fact the last video I uploaded was Warfighter.

All those copyright trolls with their hands out wont get anything from me, I will delete it, before I let them get my ad revenue.

Once you get a take down notice you have 3 options. 1. Delete it, 2. Let the trolls (thieves) put ads on it and steal your ad revenue, or 3. Contest it, But if you LOSE, your account risk getting deleted. Sorry so wordy.

I remember that Totalbiscuit (member of the Gamestation network) said that Sega was doing something similar. However, I think he said that they were just sending takedown notices. Apparently after 3 takedown notices, your youtube account is suspended from making ad revenue, IIRC. In reaction, TB and other gamestation members have been boycotting Sega games, which means that I don't see or hear about them, and then don't know they exist, so I don't buy them. Net negative for sure.

Or maybe you could just accept that it is their intellectual property and they can do whatever they want with it. Throwing a little tantrum because your copyright violation got removed is really really mature.

You are not entitled to anyone's intellectual property, get that into your smug head.

There's no tantrum. User finds products through a particular medium. Manufacturer has decided to prevent product from appearing in that medium. User doesn't find out about product. QED Manufacturer has lost ability to sell to that User.

I was referring to TB and etc's petty boycott. It is the copyright owner's rights to do what they want with their work.

As for their bottom line being affected by the absence of LPs, that has yet to be established.

If anything, it's Sega acting petty, rather than accept the potential free promotion. Why would TB and others continue to promote their games if they have no incentive to do so? It's simple logic. Yes, it's Sega's call that they don't trust their game quality enough to allow Let's Plays, but the consequence of that is zero promotion from people who have a proven audience (aka subscribers). If most of these companies had their way, astroturfing and softball reviews are the only things people would hear about their games. I know I've bought several games after watching Let's Play replays and liking what I saw.

Lets Plays are *explicity* named in the YouTube TOS as something you're *not* allowed to make money off (or possibly even produce at all) without explicit consent of the content owners. People like TB and what-not have contracts and deals with various publishers to ensure they are allowed to do this.

You are absolutely wrong. Game reviewers needs no agreement with a publisher to review a game. If that were the case then publishers would be able to pick and choose who got to review their game and not. They rely completely on fair use to do reviews.

The only agreement between reviewers and publishers are for distribution of early review copies where they enforce an embargo that usually ends a few days before the game is released. The embargo is there to make sure everyone gets a few days with the game rather than rushing out a review asap.

Absolutely is a fairly strong word.

Reviews are part of being critical, which like parody, has some protection depending on the region you live in.

A Lets Play is not a review. It's hour upon hour of unabridged footage of a game being played, with non-critical commentary over the top. There are people who have LPs of Skyrim that have hundreds of 40 minute episodes.

These kinds of comparisons can get conversations into trouble, but it's like the difference between a movie review or critique (like Red Letter Media's Star Wars critiques that are longer than the movies themselves) and just footage of a movie being watched, with inane commentary over the top.

*Edit*: If when you say review you're referring to me referring to TB, I apologise. TB is perhaps a bad example because he doesn't really do Lets Plays, though it's arguable that his content sits somewhere in between. To stay in the same vein of content producers, let's take my argument and swap out TB for Jessie Cox, or NorthernLion.

Appologies, I should've only quoted that second sentence to be more clear. And yes, imo the type of let's plays Jesse Cox makes are probably running afoul of current copyright laws but it's probably being left alone because it is great advertising. As far as I know he does not have any agreements with publishers that allows him to make let's plays, if he does then please link the source.

Also, TB is far away from let's plays imo. Assuming you're refering to 'wtf is' then any spoliers are allways edited out, he's doing the review the entire time rather than commentary and the footage is generally demonstrating what he's talking about. Granted they're (by many) considered to be somewhat to long but that's another matter.

And if you're refering to things like guns of icarus or blood bowl (TGS thingies) then that'd make even angry joe a let's player.

And yes, imo the type of let's plays Jesse Cox makes are probably running afoul of current copyright laws but it's probably being left alone because it is great advertising. As far as I know he does not have any agreements with publishers that allows him to make let's plays, if he does then please link the source.

No source specifically, but he is part of The GameStation (like TB and others) and they do all that legal junk for him, so I presume what he produces is covered.

It's been linked in this discussion above (and downvoted for... some reason. I really wish people had to downvote with comment, it would make this kind of discussion so much clearer), but this is Jessie and TB talking about it on a podcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... EY#t=1075s"